{"title":"Leibniz and Newton on Space, Time and the Trinity","authors":"P. Redding","doi":"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL201171614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who was born in 1646 just before the end of the Thirty Years War and who died 1716, is surely one of the most bizarre and interesting of the early modern philosophers. He was an astonishing polymath, and responsible for some of the most advanced work in the sciences of his day--he was, for instance, the co-inventor along with Newton, of differential calculus, and is generally recognized as the greatest logician of the early modern period, responsible for advances in logic not rivaled until the mid-nineteenth century. But this progressive aspect of Leibniz's thought is paired by one that was more backward looking, deeply engaged with pre-modern forms of thinking that referred back through Medieval culture to the philosophy of ancient times. And alongside of his scientific advances, he is known for having created one of the most baroque and puzzling metaphysical systems in the history of philosophy--the so-called \"Monadology\". For much of his life he was also absorbed in theological disputes that have now been long been forgotten, and generally thought of as alien to modern scientific modes of thought. But it is easy to fall into anachronistic assumptions here. First, historians of the early modern period point to the degree that scientific and theological issues were virtually inseparable during much of this period. Even in the case of Newton, it would seem, he was forced to trade in ideas of very questionable provenance in order to come up with his revolutionary achievements in natural science. But if we further concentrate not on the development within formal or empirical sciences but on questions of a distinctly philosophical nature, Leibniz seems to further complicate assumptions about the unidirectional nature of intellectual progress. While many of his contemporaries saw progress as involving a break with the past, and especially the Aristotelianism that came from the scholastic period, Leibniz did not see the task as one of breaking with ancient philosophical thought, but as integrating it with modern scientific advances. Today I would like to attempt to bring some of the ways in which Leibniz's scientific, philosophical and theological views were bound up with each other by briefly examining his roles within two apparently different disputes in the late 17th and early 18th centuries: first his dispute with Newton over the nature of space and time; and next his dispute with the \"Socinian\" followers of Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), (a religious movement that later came to be called \"Unitarianism\"), over the doctrine of the trinity. (1) These may seem to be unrelated, but they might be connected in interesting ways. First, Leibniz's dispute with Newton over space and time had, as we will see, overtly theological aspects. Furthermore, as we now know, Newton had himself been a secret critic of the doctrine of the Trinity. (2) We might then wonder if there is a relation between Leibniz's attitude to Newton on the issue of space and time on the one hand, and his relation to the Socinians on the trinity, on the other. I'll suggest that indeed there could be a relation there, and that the connection has to do with rival conceptions of the mind and its operations implicit in both disputes. Leibniz's critique of a certain conception of God common to Newton and the Socinians signaled a challenge to the prevailing conceptions of divine mindedness, and as humans were, after all, conceived as made in God's likeness, changes in conceptions of the divine mind were going to be reflected in conceptions of the human. But it was a backward--looking challenge that appealed to older conceptions. Despite this, I believe, we can see within Leibniz's thought anticipations of some later, more progressive accounts of the mind as found in post-Kantian idealists like Fichte and Hegel. These accounts were to take the approach to human mindedness beyond standardly \"immaterialist\" and \"materialist\" alternatives of the early modern era. …","PeriodicalId":288505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL201171614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who was born in 1646 just before the end of the Thirty Years War and who died 1716, is surely one of the most bizarre and interesting of the early modern philosophers. He was an astonishing polymath, and responsible for some of the most advanced work in the sciences of his day--he was, for instance, the co-inventor along with Newton, of differential calculus, and is generally recognized as the greatest logician of the early modern period, responsible for advances in logic not rivaled until the mid-nineteenth century. But this progressive aspect of Leibniz's thought is paired by one that was more backward looking, deeply engaged with pre-modern forms of thinking that referred back through Medieval culture to the philosophy of ancient times. And alongside of his scientific advances, he is known for having created one of the most baroque and puzzling metaphysical systems in the history of philosophy--the so-called "Monadology". For much of his life he was also absorbed in theological disputes that have now been long been forgotten, and generally thought of as alien to modern scientific modes of thought. But it is easy to fall into anachronistic assumptions here. First, historians of the early modern period point to the degree that scientific and theological issues were virtually inseparable during much of this period. Even in the case of Newton, it would seem, he was forced to trade in ideas of very questionable provenance in order to come up with his revolutionary achievements in natural science. But if we further concentrate not on the development within formal or empirical sciences but on questions of a distinctly philosophical nature, Leibniz seems to further complicate assumptions about the unidirectional nature of intellectual progress. While many of his contemporaries saw progress as involving a break with the past, and especially the Aristotelianism that came from the scholastic period, Leibniz did not see the task as one of breaking with ancient philosophical thought, but as integrating it with modern scientific advances. Today I would like to attempt to bring some of the ways in which Leibniz's scientific, philosophical and theological views were bound up with each other by briefly examining his roles within two apparently different disputes in the late 17th and early 18th centuries: first his dispute with Newton over the nature of space and time; and next his dispute with the "Socinian" followers of Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), (a religious movement that later came to be called "Unitarianism"), over the doctrine of the trinity. (1) These may seem to be unrelated, but they might be connected in interesting ways. First, Leibniz's dispute with Newton over space and time had, as we will see, overtly theological aspects. Furthermore, as we now know, Newton had himself been a secret critic of the doctrine of the Trinity. (2) We might then wonder if there is a relation between Leibniz's attitude to Newton on the issue of space and time on the one hand, and his relation to the Socinians on the trinity, on the other. I'll suggest that indeed there could be a relation there, and that the connection has to do with rival conceptions of the mind and its operations implicit in both disputes. Leibniz's critique of a certain conception of God common to Newton and the Socinians signaled a challenge to the prevailing conceptions of divine mindedness, and as humans were, after all, conceived as made in God's likeness, changes in conceptions of the divine mind were going to be reflected in conceptions of the human. But it was a backward--looking challenge that appealed to older conceptions. Despite this, I believe, we can see within Leibniz's thought anticipations of some later, more progressive accounts of the mind as found in post-Kantian idealists like Fichte and Hegel. These accounts were to take the approach to human mindedness beyond standardly "immaterialist" and "materialist" alternatives of the early modern era. …
戈特弗里德·威廉·莱布尼茨(Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)出生于1646年,就在三十年战争结束前,于1716年去世。他无疑是早期现代哲学家中最离奇、最有趣的人之一。他是一个惊人的博学家,在他那个时代的科学中,他做出了一些最先进的工作——例如,他与牛顿共同发明了微分学,被普遍认为是近代早期最伟大的逻辑学家,他在逻辑学方面取得的进步直到19世纪中叶才被人匹敌。但是莱布尼茨思想中进步的一面与另一方面相辅相成的是更向后看的一面,与前现代的思想形式密切相关,这些思想形式可以追溯到中世纪文化和古代哲学。除了科学上的进步,他还创造了哲学史上最巴洛克、最令人费解的形而上学体系之一——所谓的“一元论”。在他一生的大部分时间里,他还专注于神学争论,这些争论现在早已被人遗忘,而且通常被认为与现代科学思维模式格格不入。但在这里很容易陷入时代错误的假设。首先,早期现代历史学家指出,在这一时期的大部分时间里,科学问题和神学问题实际上是不可分割的。即使是牛顿,为了在自然科学领域取得革命性的成就,他似乎也被迫放弃了一些来源非常可疑的想法。但是,如果我们不再关注形式科学或经验科学内部的发展,而是关注具有明显哲学性质的问题,莱布尼茨似乎将有关智力进步单向性的假设进一步复杂化。莱布尼茨同时代的许多人认为进步是与过去的决裂,尤其是与来自经院时期的亚里士多德主义决裂,但莱布尼茨并不认为这是与古代哲学思想决裂的任务之一,而是将其与现代科学进步相结合。今天,我想通过简要考察莱布尼茨在17世纪末和18世纪初两场明显不同的争论中所扮演的角色,来介绍莱布尼茨的科学、哲学和神学观点是如何相互联系在一起的:首先,他与牛顿关于空间和时间本质的争论;其次是他与浮士德·索西纳斯(1539-1604)的“索西尼派”追随者(一种后来被称为“一神论”的宗教运动)在三位一体教义上的争论。这些可能看起来毫无关联,但它们可能以有趣的方式联系在一起。首先,莱布尼茨与牛顿关于空间和时间的争论,我们将会看到,带有明显的神学色彩。此外,正如我们现在所知,牛顿自己也曾秘密地批评过三位一体学说。(2)那么,我们也许会想,莱布尼茨在空间和时间问题上对牛顿的态度,与他在三位一体问题上对社会主义者的态度,两者之间是否有某种关系。我认为这两者之间确实存在联系,这种联系与心智的对立概念及其在两种争论中隐含的运作有关。莱布尼茨对牛顿和社会主义者共同的上帝观的批判标志着对主流的神性观念的挑战,毕竟,人类是按照上帝的形象被创造出来的,神性观念的变化将会反映在人类的观念中。但这是一个面向过去的挑战,吸引了更老的观念。尽管如此,我相信,在莱布尼茨的思想中,我们可以看到一些后来的,更进步的思想描述,就像在费希特和黑格尔等后康德唯心主义者中发现的那样。这些描述是为了超越现代早期标准的“非唯物主义”和“唯物主义”替代方案,采取人类思想的方法。…